Trying to understand 9/11 versus Hiroshima

Yes, there is such a thing as 'a just war' - and we have had long threads here listing the conditions that have to be met to make it just - but I am not sure that the USA war against Japan in 1945 meets the requirements since the USA did so much to provoke it by squeezing Japan economically before the Pearl Harbor incident (and ignoring the subsequent warnings that Japan gave the US.)

That would be when we reacted to the news of Japan's genocide of their neighbors by refusing to sell our resources to them because we did not want the moral stigma of fueling a genocide.

That is not in any way a legitimate reason for Japan to attack us, and the A-bombs, in addition to hitting military targets, were part of a just war of self defense.

I don't think either one was necessary. Japan was asking for terms of surrender before the atomic bombs were dropped on them.

That is factually inaccurate in a number of ways.

First, Japan had no interest in surrender until after both A-bombs had been dropped.

And second, Japan had the terms of surrender. The terms had already been presented to them in the Potsdam Proclamation.

Pyrrho wrote:

It was evidently thought by the U.S. government that better terms could be easily had by killing a bunch of civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Actually, what was thought was that maybe dropping A-bombs on military targets would shock Japan into deciding to surrender. If not, the destruction of those military targets would make the invasion easier when we went ahead with it.

Of course, whether the bombing was necessary is something we'll never know. Opinion is mixed on that matter. We had an unconditional surrender policy. and it was this policy that proved the stumbling block.

Not so much of a stumbling block.

Japan only asked for a conditional surrender after both A-bombs had been dropped.

And they only took a couple days more to agree to unconditional surrender.

I've enjoyed this debate tremendously so far, but here's a suggestion to steer conversation in another direction:

If it is agreed that America has engaged in activities in the past that can be deemed acts of terrorism, is it unethical for America to be fighting a war on terror when we ourselves have been terrorist?

Not unethical.

However, I strenuously disagree with the absurd notion that America has engaged in terrorism in the past.

Karpowich wrote:

Also, I do not think the personal justification behind the act should impact the discussion. As many people have stated before, personal justification is one sided. What may seem necessary to an American is most likely a great evil to whomever the act was enacted upon. I'm pretty sure the Japanese do not look at the bombing of their country with happiness and thank America for destroying their non-combat kin in an attempt to save the lives of Americans.

You'd be surprised. Many Japanese credit the A-bombs for allowing the peace faction to outmaneuver the war faction.

I dont think it was a terrorist act, it was an act of war. Why should I feel sorrow for a nation that committed thousands of war crimes. I feel sorrow for the individuals suffering but its the nation of Japan that should be held responsible.

Amazingly, this is a major portion of the logic behind Al Qaeda and 9/11.

Yes, but the logic of such evil people holds no merit.

Even if they had a just cause for war, it was a Crime Against Humanity for them to intentionally slaughter a large number of civilians.

And they had no just cause for war.

Karpowich wrote:

They look at the United States uninvited involvement in the middle east and do not look at their act of terrorism as a terrorist attack but most likely an act of war as well.

The fact that radical extremists who want to oppress women and kill anyone who is different from them don't like the fact that we prevent them from conquering their countries and carrying out their oppression, does not mean our presence is uninvited.

Karpowich wrote:

Based on your logic, why should they feel sorry for us when we ourselves have created acts of terrorism in the past?

We haven't created acts of terrorism in the past.

Karpowich wrote:

We are no better than they are yet everyday we try and prove we are far more righteous.

No, we are far better than they are. We don't intentionally target civilians.

Terrorism is an empty term that has no meaning. There are only acts of aggression. The label terrorism is only applied by those acted upon. I have never heard of anyone that has been a part of an act of aggression (what is referred to as terrorism) that did so for no reason. No matter how skewed all so-called terrorists are justified in their own minds and for the most part they all have legitimate reasons for their beliefs, if not for their actions.

There has never been an unprovoked act of terrorism in known history.

Both 9/11 and Hiroshima/Nagasaki were justified attacks. One was done by us the other was done against us.

9/11 was the intentional targeting of a large number of civilians: a crime against humanity. Even if there was a just cause for war, such a crime would still be unjustified.

And the fact that extremists don't like the fact that we prevent them from murdering and oppressing people is not even remotely a just cause for them to go to war.

The reason we were attacked on 9/11 has nothing to do with the American People, it was an attack on American business that has been raping the natural resources of the arab world for the last 100 years.

No, the reason we were attacked is because al-Qa'ida wants to conquer the world, genocide all non-Muslims, and brutally oppress women, and we won't let them.

But we were taking care of our own problems. The control of the Middle East by hostile forces would be a disaster for the United States, and for the rest of the first world (and even the third world).

hostile forces we trained and supplied during the cold war era....
and hostilities we helped perpetuate by keeping (corrupt)people in power whom the nations clearly didn't want(see Shah of Iran circa 1979 or so heck see South Vietnam) and using a secret police to arrest those who opposed simply because of our fear of communism and desire to control oil producing nations.

We did not keep the Shah in power. That's Iranian propaganda.

And the fact that extremists don't want us to support moderates does not mean that the entire nation does not want those moderates.

I have heard they very much wanted to warn off Russia and prevent a Russian invasion of Japan. I don't know enough history to say whether Japan would be another North Korea right now if that had happened though.

That was not the reason for dropping the bombs. That was something they hoped would be a side effect.

If it were true that ending it as soon as possible were really what mattered, the U.S. would have negotiated Japan's surrender before that time, as they had asked for terms of surrender. Since the U.S. did not do that, obviously, ending the war as quickly as possible was not paramount.

Japan did not ask to surrender until after both A-bombs had been dropped.

They did not need to ask for terms, as we had provided those terms to them already, in the Potsdam Proclamation.